EBREY, D., (ed.),
Theory and Practice in Aristotle's Natural Science.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (...), 2017. 1st paperback ed. VIII,261p. Paperback. 'How are Aristotle’s scientific treatises related to his thoughts on metaphysics and the methodology of the sciences? Generations of scholars have taken these to be largely independent. The Posterior Analytics formalizes scientific reasoning as a series of syllogisms with premises derived from definitions; the biological writings contain few definitions and are free of explicit syllogisms. Further, Aristotle rarely works through how any of his more abstruse metaphysical speculations are employed in biological and other scientific works. In recent decades, however, it has become clearer how Aristotle’s thought as a theoretical philosopher is integrated with his scientific research. There is no clean separation between Aristotle’s empirical research and more general investigations into knowledge and nature, which fall more squarely into what we recognize as philosophy. The two are implicated in each other and are to some extent inseparable. As its title indicates, the present volume contains new scholarship along these lines. A common theme is that longstanding misinterpretations of Aristotelian theory are due to a failure to appreciate the mutual implications that hold between Aristotle’s own practice as a natural scientist and what we would consider his more philosophical work. The volume as a whole aims to correct such purported misinterpretations. Not all readers will find all the proposed corrections here equally convincing, but not a single paper is less than intriguing, and the volume advances the project of understanding how Aristotle’s work hangs together as a whole.(...) Ebrey and his contributors deserve thanks for showing new ways to appeal to Aristotle’s practice to shed light on his theory, and vice versa. (...) Ebrey and his contributors deserve thanks for showing new ways to appeal to Aristotle’s practice to shed light on his theory, and vice versa.' (OWEN GOLDIN in Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2016.02.37).